I love how you tailor you posts here to make it seem like you're being reasonable. Yet in your blog posts, which at first I thought were duplicates, you persist in the false notion that Latin is derived from Greek (emphasis mine):

You already have a blog for these. Don't waste our time and forum space with these if you're just going to copy sanitized versions of your blog. Those of us who want to drink of your etymological fantasies know the URL now.

annis wrote:I love how you tailor you posts here to make it seem like you're being reasonable. Yet in your blog posts, which at first I thought were duplicates, you persist in the false notion that Latin is derived from Greek (emphasis mine):

You already have a blog for these. Don't waste our time and forum space with these if you're just going to copy sanitized versions of your blog. Those of us who want to drink of your etymological fantasies know the URL now.

I second that! But remember, the entire Proto Indo-European language derived from Ancient Greek....

IreneY wrote:Or, in other words, most of the rest of the world -or at least the western world- probably communicated with grunts and gestures before coming in contact with the Greeks or their students, the Romans.

IreneY wrote:Or, in other words, most of the rest of the world -or at least the western world- probably communicated with grunts and gestures before coming in contact with the Greeks or their students, the Romans.

Duh! That's why they were called barbarians!

Hehe...

Come on now, the linguistic theory that all Indo-European languages are derived from Greek is every bit as valid as the Darwinian theory that we are all descended from chimps.

Seriously, though, does this guy believe that all Indo-European derives from Greek, or just Latin and derived languages?

I'd love to hear how "dog" is derived from ÎºÏ…Ï‰Î½.

[edit]

For that matter, how the heck did something like the shift from something like equus to á¼°Ï€Ï€Î¿Ï‚ happen? Or was it the other way around? The centum/satem split is hard enough for me to swallow (although I can see how a "k" sound might become an "h" sound through an intermediate (or parent) aspirated "k" sound). Is this something that we are just supposed to accept based on the cognates that follow these rules? Or are there explanations for these shifts that are reasonable?

Lex wrote:Seriously, though, does this guy believe that all Indo-European derives from Greek, or just Latin and derived languages?

I'd love to hear how "dog" is derived from ÎºÏ…Ï‰Î½.

I don't think he believes that every Latin word (or every English word) comes from Greek but he does seem to believe that every Latin (or English) word that is a cognate to a Greek word derived from that Greek word.

Lex wrote:Seriously, though, does this guy believe that all Indo-European derives from Greek, or just Latin and derived languages?

I'd love to hear how "dog" is derived from ÎºÏ…Ï‰Î½.

I don't think he believes that every Latin word (or every English word) comes from Greek but he does seem to believe that every Latin (or English) word that is a cognate to a Greek word derived from that Greek word.

Yeah, basically he doesn't understand the difference between cognate and derivative. It's like looking at your brother and saying, "Hey, dad!"

Lex wrote:But, hey, this etymology stuff is fun and easy. All you need is a language reference of any sort, and a lot of imagination. No scientific arguments required.

I'm not sure if you're joking or not, but historical linguistics is not an arbitrary practice. It's a very powerful method, and if you'd like to ease your mind a bit about it's validity, read about the laryngeal theory of Ferdinand de Saussure and its apparent validation with the decipherment of Hittite.

It's a complex and confusing science, but the introductory chapters of "Indo-European Language and Culture" by Benjamin Fortson from 2004 provide great explanations for the theory and fundamentals. There is also a book called "Comparative Indo-European Linguistics" by Robert Beekes from 1995. He is also a clear writer, although I prefer Fortson's book overall.

It's not just a matter of searching for similar-looking words. For instance, Fortson will explain that Î¸Îµá½¹Ï‚ and deus have no historical relationship despite appearances.

Lex wrote:For that matter, how the heck did something like the shift from something like equus to á¼°Ï€Ï€Î¿Ï‚ happen? Or was it the other way around?

It's not a question of going from one to the other; they are both reflexes of an earlier word. They are also cognate with Sanskrit Ã¡Å›va, to make things more amazing.

I think the Greek reflex á¼µÏ€Ï€Î¿Ï‚ has something to do with the palatization of the labiovelars in Greek, but I believe it involves a more complicated sound change than the simple palatization. The initial aspiration is more of a problem than the other elements. Maybe someone else can explain it more clearly. In Linear B records the word is spelled i-qo (dative) which seems to betray its origins.

Lex wrote:But, hey, this etymology stuff is fun and easy. All you need is a language reference of any sort, and a lot of imagination. No scientific arguments required.

I'm not sure if you're joking or not, but historical linguistics is not an arbitrary practice.

I was joking. I don't really think Hungarian and Hawaiian are related, either.

swiftnicholas wrote:

Lex wrote:For that matter, how the heck did something like the shift from something like equus to á¼°Ï€Ï€Î¿Ï‚ happen? Or was it the other way around?

It's not a question of going from one to the other; they are both reflexes of an earlier word. They are also cognate with Sanskrit Ã¡Å›va, to make things more amazing.

My ear can actually buy that more easily than equus and á¼°Ï€Ï€Î¿Ï‚ being related, believe it or not. I'm aware of the centum/satem split, which I can sort of hear, and taking that into consideration, Ã¡Å›va would transform into something like Ã¡kva, which does seem close to equus. I've also read that there is a P/Q split in Celtic.
.

This occurred to me; supposedly Q-Celtic (Celtic on the Q side of the P/Q split), aka Celtiberian, was the original Celtic, and P-Celtic is the offshoot. Also, Latin (a Q language) is supposedly more closely related to Celtic than to Greek. That would imply that the P/Q split between Proto-Greek and other languages in that tree happened first, then another P/Q split happened independently in Celtic. Is this right?

Lex wrote:This occurred to me; supposedly Q-Celtic (Celtic on the Q side of the P/Q split), aka Celtiberian, was the original Celtic, and P-Celtic is the offshoot. Also, Latin (a Q language) is supposedly more closely related to Celtic than to Greek. That would imply that the P/Q split between Proto-Greek and other languages in that tree happened first, then another P/Q split happened independently in Celtic. Is this right?

Hie thee to a bookstore and buy Fortson's expensive book! The three different velar sounds (plain, palatal, labial) fell out in different ways in different languages. I wouldn't speak of a P/Q split across major language families, or at least not without a lot of hedging. Several language families have diagnostic splits within them. Greek has a labio-velar P/Q split of its own (to say nothing of the strange /t/ outcome in palatal environments).

annis wrote:...... The three different velar sounds (plain, palatal, labial) fell out in different ways in different languages. .......

I don't pretend to understand all of this. (This is the first time I have heard of something called a P/Q split,) but this comment puzzled me enough to ask about it. Three different velar sounds: Plain would probably be the real velar, like the ng in young, I am thinking that palatal would be the y in young but what is a labial velar sound? I don't know how I would go about making a velar sound that involves my lips. What am I misunderstanding?

Bert wrote:Three different velar sounds: Plain would probably be the real velar, like the ng in young, I am thinking that palatal would be the y in young but what is a labial velar sound? I don't know how I would go about making a velar sound that involves my lips. What am I misunderstanding?

Well, we're talking about the velar stops here, which in the proto-indo-european situation means k, g, gh. It is widely, if not universally, held that there were three varieties of these sounds:

plain

palatal (like the beginning of cute, though without the [y])

labial, basically a k articulated with the lips rounded as for [w]

In the centum languages the palatals merged with the plain series, and in the satem languages the labials merged with the plain series and the palatals went on to produce sibilants (s or sh sounds) or affricates (ch and j sounds). (More or less, some languages may have handled each series separately). Disentangling all of this kept the early historical linguists busy for quite a while.

The P/Q split has to do with how the languages handled the labio-velars. Sometimes the dropped back to simple velars, or they might even have stayed labio-velar for a while (Latin quis, Mycenaean i-qo). In some languages they switched into pure labial sounds (i.e., p, b and the like). Thus the name, P/Q split.

The Greek fallout from the labio-velars is just a mess, with each of kw, gw and ghw (normally that "w" would be a superscript) turning into a different sound depending on other nearby sounds and, for more fun yet, falling out differently in different dialects. For example, in Attic-Ionic, kw next to i or e turned into /t/ of all things, so that Ï„Î¯Ï‚ is cognate with Latin quis, and Ï„Îµ with Latin -que.